This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

ADJ-00007778

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Parties:

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Warehouse Assistant

A Logistics Company

Representatives

SIPTU

Ken Stafford Management Consultancy Services

Complaints:

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00006648-001

21/04/2016

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00006648-003

21/04/2016

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00006648-004

21/04/2016

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00006648-005

21/04/2016

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00006648-010

21/04/2016

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00006648-011

21/04/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/08/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

The background to this case lies in the transfer of the complainant’s employment from her original employer by means of a Transfer of Undertaking.

There is a preliminary issue as to whether the respondent has been correctly identified.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant believes that her employment was transferred to the respondent.

A named Director/Owner of the current respondent was involved in the initial takeover and transfer to company ‘B’, (see below).

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The background to this case lies in the transfer of the complainant’s employment from her original employer by means of a Transfer of Undertaking.

There is a preliminary issue as to whether the respondent has been correctly identified.

The initial transfer took place on October 28th, 2015 to company ‘B’, and a further transfer took place to company ‘C’ in October/November 2016.

The respondent states that the named respondent in this complaint was never involved in the succession to the complainant’s original employer, although this respondent shared a Director with the transferee. However, it was not her employer at any stage and he had no other connection with the respondent.

The current respondent has never operated the business and has no connection with companies ‘B’ and ‘C’ which are correctly named as respondents in other cases currently before the WRC.

The complainant has asserted only the most tenuous of connections between the complainant’s employment and the respondent.

It is quite clear that the respondent has never been a link in the chain of changes that gives rise to other complaints by the complainant.

Her P60s for 2016 and 2017 were issued by company ‘C’, as referred to above. This respondent was never her employer and is not a valid respondent to the current complaints.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complainant has asserted only the most tenuous of connections between the complainant’s employment and the respondent.

It is quite clear that this respondent has never been a link in the chain of changes that gives rise to other complaints by the complainant.

Her P60s for 2016 and 2017 were issued by company ‘C’, as referred to above.

I find that the current respondent was never her employer and is not a valid respondent for purposes of the current complaints.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

For the reasons set out above I do not uphold any of the complaints CA-00006648-001, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 and they are all dismissed.